Court mandates consideration of long-serving workers for permanent appointment amidst new recruitment processes.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 The petitioners are Headload Workers of the 2^nd batch working under the Kerala Feeds Ltd. pursuant to its decision in 2003. The petitioners have been working under the respondents for the past more than 19 years. In the year 2003, the Kerala Feeds Ltd., had decided to engage 39 Headload workers on a full time basis in the Kerala Feeds Ltd. at Kalletumkara.

2. On the basis of Ext.P1, originally, there were

39 workers in the batch and the petitioners are active members of the Kerala Feeds Loading and Unloading Thozhilali Union, Reg. No. 8-10/2015. Many among them were sponsored through the Employment Exchange, while others were selected by the Company through an independent selection process.

3. The petitioners have been continuously discharging their duties for nearly two decades without any break. The petitioners are enrolled in the Employees' Provident Fund, and regular contributions are deducted from their salary by the 1^st respondent. The petitioners state that they have a legitimate expectation that their long service, experience and prior selection procedure would be duly considered in matters of regularisation or permanent appointment.

4. However, it has now come to the knowledge of the petitioners that the respondents are proposing to invite applications for the post of permanent workers in the scale of pay ₹16,500 - 25,200, from among candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. If such recruitment is carried out without considering the petitioners, the petitioners will be irreparably prejudiced.

5. In the light of Ext.P2, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation on 14.10.2025, requesting that they too be granted similar treatment and be considered for permanent appointment along with Employment Exchange candidates. Despite submission of Ext.P3, no action has been taken till date, contends the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

7. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the petitioners being Headload workers cannot have a claim and they cannot seek to direct the respondents for continued engagement.

8. Standing Counsel further pointed out that the State is not a party and any decision in this regard can be considered only with the approval of the State.

9. Be that as it may, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P3 representation before the respondents. As the petitioners' claim to have long years of service as Headload workers, it would be only just and proper that the 1^st respondent considers their representation and takes a decision thereon strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

SR